Clinton's Tangled Webs in Manhattan and Morocco

Ever hear the stereotype that Wall Street establishmentarians support Republican candidates come hell or high water?

Ever wonder if this is actually true?

"Seems like we are headed for a Sec Clinton v D Trump showdown but it feels like the Secretary's path seems more certain to me...I am not sure how Wall Street feels about Trump since the past week has created a bit of havoc in GOP party with SCarolina & NV now behind us," Hillary Clinton ally Robert Wolf -- a key Obama fundraiser and veteran investment banker who once headed UBS Americas -- wrote during this year's primary season.

He continued: "I think the business community will show their full support behind the Secretary as most will align with her policies on immigration, education, infrastructure, climate change and the future of the Supreme Court. I am not sure the business community has yet to figure out how to view Trump as the GOP nominee since he hasn't really shown any granularity to his policiy vision and it has been more rhetoric."

The latter presumed that "with HRC looking better these days, Wall Street is pretty happy with that and with Trump, Wall Street must be in despair, especially all those people who were supporting Bush, or walker or the others who have dropped out".

Fast forward to the present, in which the Manhattan sugar daddies of many a GOP politico are well-distanced from Trump or outright supporting Clinton.

Why would they take a chance on the Democratic nominee? Simple: Against Trump, Clinton is no bet, but a sure avenue for them to secure or gain power on Capitol Hill. After all, she has been taking Wall Street money both politically and personally for years on end. Hillary knows where her bread is buttered.

For a sneak peek at the VIP treatment her paymasters undoubtedly expect, check out a recent report from - of all publications - The Wall Street Journal.

"The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email use," staffer Devlin Barrett chronicled.

That is not all.

In early 2015, King Mohammed VI of Morocco offered a $12,000,000 pledge to the Clinton Foundation. This money would supposedly fund a conference in his nation - on one condition. Hillary had to attend herself; no surrogates or stand-ins would do.

At the same time, Hillary was running for president. How could she engage in a quid-pro-quo scheme with a foreign ruler while claiming to be everywoman?

"This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," Hillary aide Huma Abedin related to Clinton campaign director Robby Mook. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it."

Is this the sort of judgment you expect from our country's leader?

Though the Super PAC payout story can be chalked up to superior journalism on behalf of The Wall Street Journal, it is only by virtue of Wikileaks that we know about the tangled webs weaved in Manhattan and Morocco. Although the information is now clear for all to see, many 'respectable' media outlets shield their eyes.

Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, these are the same outlets which produce 'opinion polls' that show wide Clinton leads, even as more time-tested venues depict a closer race and Trump's rallies dwarf anything had by Hillary.

Bottom line: If you want a president who cares only for twisting public office to her own economic benefit and deserves a picture in the dictionary next to the word 'sellout', Clinton is your candidate.